2007_0117_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CHARTER COMMISSION JANUARY i7, 2007 I believe that when the citizens of Roseville have told us twice that they don't believe a charter is desirable or necessary we should believe them. Because there is no longer a reason for the charter commission to exist it should dissolve itsself. The originators of the petition to appoint a charter commission have often asked us to consider the wishes of the 600+ petitioners. We have done so. We have studied the charter form of government, written a charter and put one to a vote twice. Our obligation to the petitioners has ended. Our obligation now is to the 375$ voters who said no in 2ooi, a larger number who said no in 2002, and to those voters who are still surprised and mystified that we still exist. We have also been asked not to dissolve so that at some time in the future a charter commission can reappointed without the hard work of gathering signatures for a new. petition. Here there are two issues to consider: fairness and goals. First: at some future time, say io years from now or 20 years from now, how many of the 1999 Petitioners are still voting citizens of the city? In all fairness the list of signers should be scrutinized to determine which of those names are still valid and that they appear only once. Second: are the goals of the new effort the same as the goals on the original petition? The goals on this original petition are: initiative and referendum, recall, and to place limits on the expenditure of municipal funds without voter approval. Obviously, the resulting charter did not meet all these expectations, and for good reasons. State statutes now include provisions available to statutory cities like ours that were formerly available only through a charter. The one thing not provided is initiative and referendum without limitations. Anyone attempting to place extensive limits on the expenditure of municipal fund5without voter approval would be surprised at how limited their choices are. Another limiting factor is that state statute supersedes anything written into a charter. As an example, state statutes limit the reasons for recall. They do not include rudeness, arrogance or hubris.